Jedi Mind Tricks...

[Paul Stephenson]

I was listening to a seminar on Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman and his peak-end rule.  The theory is that we judge our past experiences on how they were at their peak (either good or bad) and how they were at the end.  Net pleasantness or unpleasantness or the length of the experience is for the most part disregarded.  Meaning we don't seem to care about fluctuations or filler.

I wondered if this idea fit well with our perceptions of golf courses.  Under this premise courses with 18 very solid but unspectacular holes would not be as memorable as courses with one or two spectacular holes (especially at the end) and a lot of filler.

So...

Do we use the peak-end rule in our ranking of courses?  Is this why it seems that the heroic is more memorable than the strategic?  Can you think of a “great” course that refutes the idea of peak-end?

Having only seen it on TV, Augusta has a great “peak” at Amen Corner and #15, but how memorable is the end?

I have questions for those in the business too.  Do you use some variation of the concept of peak-end in your design and routing process?  Would this be more important for a public course over a private one?

It certainly gives legs to Robert Trent Jones’ idea of a “signature hole;” or Trump’s idea of a waterfall for that matter. 

[Matthew Sander]

I think two obvious courses come to mind. Pinehurst and Pebble Beach. Pebble is a perfect example of the Peak-End theory with its signature coastal holes, allegedly pedestrian inland holes (I've never played so I will reserve my own judgement ), and all world closer. Pinehurst on the other hand is a collection of excellent holes with consistency in its approach. I wouldn't call the 18th forgettable, but it doesn't stand out when compared to the rest of the holes. Both are world class and world renowned courses that cover both sides of the argument...

[Tim Martin]

I don`t think one or two spectacular holes at the end of the course bail out a collection of so so holes. After playing a course for the first time I also go back in my mind`s eye to determine what were the bad holes more so than the spectacular. How often when asking someone about a course do you get the reply "not a bad hole out there". That`s the course I am more interested in rather than a description of one or two spectacular holes at the end or otherwise.

[Paul Stephenson]

Tim,

I think that would be the frame of mind for a lot of people on this site, and I look at things in a similar way as you do.  Although after looking into Kahneman if I hear "not a bad hole out there" I may now follow up with "tell me about the good ones?"  If I get a blank stare I may steer clear of that course as well.  I guess just because it has no valleys doesn't mean it has peaks. 

For the golf world at large, where do they derive their "peaks"?  An island green on 17? I think it depends on what your personal "peaks" are and on here I think the peaks are centred around strategic holes.  I'm not so sure about the majority...

[Tim Martin]

Paul-I understand you wanting to ask the question regarding the good holes as well. Mr. Kahneman certainly presents an interesting premise. I wonder if this could be likened to when listening to two people presenting their side of an argument you have a tendency to lean toward the latter as it is most fresh in your mind. I don`t know if this is an appropriate analogy.